I reviewed draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11, and I have come comments and some nits.
Comments …
In Section 1, definition b, please update the bullet about deign teams to:
o any WG design teams [see BCP 25] and other design teams that intend to deliver an output to the IETF,
In Section 1, definition j, please be more specific in the reference. I think the intention is to reference Section 2.2 of [RFC2026].
In Section 5.5, paragraph D, I suggest a different wording:
D. Licensing declarations must be made by people with appropriate
authorization as discussed in Section 5.6 of this document.
In Section 7, please provide pointers for FRAND, RAND, and RAND-z.
In Section 11, please drop “legal” from the first sentence in the second paragraph:
The rules that apply ...
Nits …
I see “this memo” and “this document”. Either one is fine with me, but please pick one and use it throughout.
Section 2: s/IETF and its Participants/IETF and IETF Participants/
Section 5.2.3: s/IETF area directors/IETF Area Directors/
Section 5.3: s/RFC-Editor/RFC Editor/
Please remove the period at the end of the heading for Section 5.4.2.
Section 5.4.2: s/drafts/Internet-Drafts/
Section 5.4.2, paragraph A:
s/application (3)/application, (3)/
s/application ), (4)/application, (4)/
Section 5.4.2, paragraph D:
s/submit to IETF an update/submit an update/
s/Secretariat/IETF Secretariat/ (several places)
Section 5.5, paragraph A: s/non- discriminatory/non-discriminatory/
Section 5.6:
s/IPR that is (a) owned/IPR that (a) is owned/
s/ or (b) that such persons/; or (b) persons/
s/ or (c) that such persons/; or (c) persons/
s/, or (d) in the case of an individual, the individual/; or (d) an individual/
Section 6: s/violation of IETF process/violation of the IETF Standards Process/
Section 7: s/Working groups and areas may/IETF Areas and IETF working groups/
Russ
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail